Previous 28 / 49 Next

UNTERHALTER AJ that persons without impairments enjoy. The requirement of authorisation leads to the scarcity of literary works in accessible format copies. That is unfair discrimination on the grounds of disability that section 9(3) of the Constitution prohibits. [67] The same conclusion is reached in this way. Legislation that protects the rights of copyright owners must take account of the differential impacts of such protection upon different classes of persons. In this case, how the requirement of authorisation bears upon the access that persons with print and visual disabilities have to literary works in comparison to the access enjoyed by persons without these disabilities. Where those with print and visual disabilities suffer great and particular hardship by reason of the requirement of authorisation, the requirement cannot be applied as if all persons who need access to literary works are similarly situated, when they are not. [68] This reflects a broader principle of some import. Sometimes, for the state to avoid unfair discrimination, it must treat people in the same way or make available the same entitlements. But sometimes what is required of the state is to recognise the differences between persons and to provide different or more favourable treatment to some, so as to secure non-discriminatory outcomes for all. This may appear paradoxical, but it is not, and cases of persons with disabilities well illustrate this principle. Well-known examples are these: a person in a wheelchair needs a ramp to access a public health clinic and a blind person needs a means by which they might know when it is safe to cross the road at a traffic light. [69] The same is true in the case before us. The requirement of authorisation protects the rights of owners of copyright in literary works. Parliament has decided that this protection is warranted. But this does not mean that the requirement of authorisation can be applied without regard to the impact of the requirement upon different classes of persons. To apply the requirement to all is to expose those with print and visual disabilities to the damaging scarcity of literary works. That constitutes unfair discrimination and hence the Copyright Act, to avoid this discrimination, must apply 28

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others 2022

Case Law

Country

South Africa

Country Location

Latitude: -28.58043087631903

Longitude: 24.820993917210945

Country Location (linked Case Law): South Africa

Decision Date: Sep 21, 2022

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgement in Favour of Plaintiff
Motion Granted

Keywords

Access to Information
Public Interest

Court Name: Constitutional Court of South Africa

Case Number: Case CCT 320/21

Case Summary: Facts

Blind SA, a South African organisation advocating for the rights of blind and visually impaired persons, brought a constitutional challenge against provisions of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978. The organisation argued that the Act unlawfully restricted the ability of blind persons to access published works in accessible formats such as Braille, audio, and large print.

Because the Act required prior authorisation from copyright holders before works could be converted into accessible formats, blind persons faced systematic barriers to accessing education, information, and culture. Blind SA contended that this regime violated several constitutional rights, including the right to equality (s 9), dignity (s 10), education (s 29), freedom of expression (s 16), and access to information (s 32).

The respondent, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, opposed the petition, arguing that the Copyright Act balanced the rights of authors with public interest, and that reforms were already underway through draft legislation.

Issue

The central issue before the Constitutional Court was whether the Copyright Act’s failure to provide an express exception for the reproduction of works in accessible formats constituted an unjustifiable limitation of the constitutional rights of persons with visual disabilities.

Additionally, the Court had to determine whether it had the power to grant “reading-in” relief — namely, to modify the Copyright Act by inserting provisions that immediately allow the making and distribution of accessible format copies without requiring copyright-holder permission.

Rule

The case was decided under the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of South Africa (1996), particularly:

Section 9 (Equality): Guarantees equal protection and benefit of the law.

Section 10 (Dignity): Affirms the inherent dignity of every person.

Section 29 (Education): Ensures the right to basic and further education.

Section 16 (Freedom of Expression) and Section 32 (Access to Information): Protect access to knowledge and information.

The Court also relied on international norms, including the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled, which South Africa had signed but not ratified.

Analysis

The Constitutional Court emphasised that blind and visually impaired persons had suffered decades of systemic exclusion from access to knowledge due to copyright barriers. By conditioning access on obtaining copyright-holder consent, the Act perpetuated discrimination, undermined dignity, and entrenched inequality.

The Court found that the absence of an accessible format exception in the Copyright Act was unconstitutional, as it unjustifiably limited the rights of persons with disabilities. The Minister’s argument that legislative reform was pending did not absolve the Court of its constitutional duty to grant immediate relief.

On the remedy, the Court held that reading-in was appropriate to cure the constitutional defect. The Court thus inserted provisions into the Copyright Act allowing persons with visual disabilities, or organisations acting on their behalf, to make and distribute accessible format copies of works without prior authorisation, provided this was done on a non-profit basis and solely for the benefit of persons with disabilities.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that the Copyright Act violated the constitutional rights of blind and visually impaired persons by failing to provide for accessible format exceptions. The impugned provisions were declared unconstitutional, and the Court read in new sections to immediately allow for the making, reproduction, and distribution of accessible format copies.

Case Significance: Copyright act of 1979 s 6 and s 7 declared unconstitutional.

Available in

English

Related Law

Source URL: saflii

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: Aug 18, 2025

Primary Documents

BLIND SA 1.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others 2022

Primary Documents

Notifications